Question
The effectiveness of Prum and the difficulties PSNI face in accessing certain materials with EU member states and particular difficulties with Italy and Ireland (the latter I think is due to volume of requests).
1. Could the CC outline the current arrangements under Prum for the mutual exchange with EU member states of anonymised DNA and fingerprint data, vehicle registration data and other associated policing data for the prevention and investigation of crime, detection of missing persons, identification of deceased individuals and other policing purposes?
2. Could the CC outline any problems and difficulties in applying such arrangements either in general or with specific EU member states and the reasons for any such difficulties?
3. Could the CC outline what would need to be done to improve the current arrangements and where the responsibility for ensuring the improvements lie?
Answer
1. Could the CC outline the current arrangements under Prum for the mutual exchange with EU member states of anonymised DNA and fingerprint data, vehicle registration data and other associated policing data for the prevention and investigation of crime, detection of missing persons, identification of deceased individuals and other policing purposes?
PSNI currently participates fully in the exchange of DNA under the Prüm Convention. At present 27 European states are signatories to the Convention with all 27 routinely sharing and cross searching DNA profiles internationally. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland participate in this exchange of DNA information
As part of the UK Prüm process PSNI sends regular extracts of its DNA Database to the Metropolitan Police Service. It is the MPS who manage the Prüm process for UK policing and they also manage the anonymised results returned from other signatory states. These identifications are then sent out to the owning police force and it is for the individual forces to decide whether to seek the nominal details of the person identified from the state whose DNA database they have been identified against.
PSNI participates fully in this process. The national process negates the need for officers needing to ask for DNA profiles to be shared and cross searched across jurisdictions; this cross searching and reporting of identifications takes place automatically under Prüm.
Prüm Fingerprints
PSNI also participates fully in the exchange and interoperability of fingerprints under Prüm. In common with all other UK police forces PSNI can access the fingerprint databases of 24 other Prüm signatory states from the Identification Bureau and search fingerprints against them. Like DNA, all identifications are anonymised and it is for the police force to decide whether to approach the state whose fingerprint database has been interrogated for the nominal information of the identified person. Two states are currently inaccessible to UK policing, namely the Republic of Ireland and Italy. Unlike Prüm DNA, fingerprint searches are not conducted automatically but instead have to be performed by a fingerprint expert and the investigating officer must request which countries they want searched.
Prüm Vehicle Registration Data
PSNI has acted a lead force for Prüm Vehicle Registration Data and an evaluation process took place in June of 2025 which was largely successful. PSNI are currently waiting on the Home Office to give permission for live running to commence and PSNI will be the test force once launched. It is believed go-live of Prüm VRD will be in early 2026 with the delays being due to issues within DVLA and not policing.
2. Could the CC outline any problems and difficulties in applying such arrangements either in general or with specific EU member states and the reasons for any such difficulties?
There is a specific issue with Prüm Fingerprints in that two signatory states, namely Italy and the Republic of Ireland have not opened their fingerprint databases for speculative searching. PSNI has attempted to address the lack of access to the Republics fingerprint database with An Garda Síochána and through the North South Bi-lateral Justice Meetings but without success. Therefore at this point in time it is possible for a PSNI fingerprint expert to search a crime scene mark against 24 Prüm signatory states’ fingerprint databases but not against the database of the Republic of Ireland. This is clearly having an impact on criminal investigations conducted by PSNI and An Garda Síochána.
Release of nominal information by Ireland for identified persons
A second issue focuses on the Republic of Ireland’s difficulty in releasing demographic information on those identified as a result of the Prüm DNA process. Most signatory states are content to release the name, date of birth, address etc. of those identified on a police to police basis on the understanding that this is intelligence information only. Should the information be required for evidential purposes, an International Letter of Request (ILOR) is required and should be submitted to the relevant authority within the signatory state. In the case of the Republic they are unable to release personal information even for intelligence purposes without the submission of an ILOR. This document has to be prepared by PSNI, submitted to the NI Public Prosecution Service, and then forwarded to the relevant authorities in the Republic. Only once approval is given by the Irish authorities can the nominal information be released to PSNI. This creates a delay in establishing the identity of the person identified through Prüm DNA and could impact criminal investigations. It should also be noted that this issue effects all of UK policing, not just PSNI although the impact on NI is greater given the jurisdictional proximity of Northern Ireland and the Republic. It is believed that Irish Data Protection legislation may be the reason for the need for an ILOR to be produced every time nominal information is required as a result of a Prüm identification.
It should also be noted that should PSNI gain access to the Irish Fingerprint Database through Prüm, the same issues around the timely release of nominal information in the event of an identification will effect this process as well.
3. Could the CC outline what would need to be done to improve the current arrangements and where the responsibility for ensuring the improvements lie?
Three steps could be taken;
- PSNI and UK policing gain access to the Republic’s fingerprint database and made available for speculative searching in line with the vast majority of Prüm signatory European states. PSNI and the Home Office are unclear as to what the inhibitor is for this access to be achieved. A solution to this issue will involve the Irish authorities and the Home Office who manage the national Prüm process.
- Investigate the possibility of finding a more streamlined approach to how demographic information on Prüm identifications is released to other signatory states by the Irish authorities, preferably one that takes cognisance of the intelligential nature of the information and does not require the submission of an International Letter of Request. Responsibility for finding a solution will sit with the Irish authorities.
- The possibility of a solution that resolves these issues on North/South basis may also be an option given the risks posed by the movement of people and criminals cross border.
PSNI is engaged with colleagues in An Garda Síochána in seeking to resolve these issues, particularly the lack of connectivity between the Irish and UK fingerprint databases, which presents a clear risk to safety in both jurisdictions.
Les Allamby